Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       Complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that in the month of March 2019, the complainant got financed a truck Tata Signa 4018 from the Opposite Party No.2 at Moga and the said finance/loan amount was Rs.23,09,700/- and as per terms and conditions of Opposite Party company, the complainant was to return total sum of Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments. The first 12 monthly installments were of Rs.58,400/- each and remaining 42 monthly installments were of Rs.53,050/- each. In this regard, Opposite Party No.2 issued a Repayment Schedule dated 23.03.2019 and Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 12.03.2019. The complainant regularly paid the monthly installments to Opposite Party company. In the month of July 2022, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 and inquired about balance installments of above noted loan, who told to complainant that the complainant was bound to pay 80 monthly installments of Rs.44,962/- each and the loan will be cleared in the month of December 2025. The complainant replied that as per finance terms and conditions, he was bound to pay total Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments and the loan will be cleared in September 2023. Then, Opposite Party No.2 issued to complainant photo copies of some papers and documents including repayment schedule, Restructured Schedule, Restructuring Request cum Declaration Letter (total 9 pages). In those documents it was mentioned that the complainant was bound to pay total Rs.36,43,072/- in 80 monthly installments of Rs.44,962/- each and loan will be cleared upto December 2025. Further alleged that the complainant checked those papers and documents and found that those papers and documents are forged and fabricated documents and those documents do not bear the signatures of complainant, rather Opposite Party No.2 or his staff or somebody else on their behalf had done forged signatures which are similar to his signatures. In the present complaint it is alleged that there is deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties have committed an offence of forgery and cheating and the complainant reserves his right to take suitable legal action against Opposite Party No.2 and its staff members. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 to get total sum of Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments after deducting the amount already deposited by complainant and to destroy the forged documents, but the Opposite Parties, refused to do so. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 03.08.2022 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no effect. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to get the total amount of Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments after deducting the amount already deposited by complainant and to destroy the forged documents and to use only the correct genuine documents.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be also granted to complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has filed the present complaint just in order to harass the opposite parties; the complainant is not the consumer of the Opposite Parties. The relationship between the complainant and opposite Parties is that of Borrower and Debtor and not those of consumer and Service Provider. Hence, the present complaint filed by the complainant is beyond the purview of the consumer protection Act, 2019. Further submitted that complainant has availed the financial assistance from Opposite Parties. Earlier the complainant Sukhwinder Singh had approached the Opposite Parties for getting a loan for purchase of Tata Signa 2018. At that time a loan agreement was executed between the complainant and Opposite Parties bearing agreement no.6808156 on dated 12.03.2019 at Moga. As per the loan agreement, the complainant was to repay the loan amount in 54 monthly installments, out of which 12 installments of Rs.58,400/- each and 42 installments of Rs.53,050/- each. Inspite of that the complainant did not repay the loan amount to the Opposite Parties as per the schedule and had been making defaults in repayment of the loan amount. As such, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties on dated 30.12.2020 for restructure of the loan amount and had also paid the restructure/reschedule fees of Rs.6000/- to the Opposite Parties after signing the reschedule form. Thereafter, the request of the complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties on dated 22.03.2021. Thereafter, the complainant started paying the loan installments to the Opposite Parties as per the reschedule agreement. Few of the installments of the complainant were bounced and the complainant had paid the same to the Opposite Parties in cash. In case there was any forgery as stated by the complainant in the present complaint, what was the need for the complainant to pay the installments as per revised rate. The complainant had filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties after concocting a false and frivolous story and no forged documents have ever been created by the opposite parties as stated by the complainant. The complainant had filed the present complaint with the motive to avoid his liability to repay the loan amount. Instead of paying the loan amount, the complainant has leveled wrong allegations against the Opposite Parties.  On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Parties denying the objections raised by them in their written reply.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

5.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhjeet Singh, Law Officer, HDB Financial Services Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs7.

6.       We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

7.       The case of the complainant is that he got financed a truck Tata Signa 4018 from the Opposite Parties for an amount of Rs.23,09,700/- and the said amount was to be returned in 54 monthly installments. The first 12 monthly installments were of Rs.58,400/- each and remaining 42 monthly installments were of Rs.53,050/- each. In this regard, Opposite Party No.2 issued a Repayment Schedule dated 23.03.2019 and Agreement for Loan and Guarantee dated 12.03.2019. The complainant regularly paid the monthly installments to Opposite Parties. In the month of July 2022, when the complainant inquired from the Opposite Parties about remaining installments of above noted loan, he was surprised to know that 80 monthly installments of Rs.44,962/- were due and the loan was to be closed in December 2025. The complainant told the Opposite Parties that as per the schedule, he has to pay Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments and the loan is to be paid till September 2023. Then, Opposite Parties showed the complainant photo copies of some papers and documents including repayment schedule, Restructured Schedule, Restructuring Request cum Declaration Letter (total 9 pages). In those documents it was mentioned that the complainant was bound to pay total Rs.36,43,072/- in 80 monthly installments of Rs.44,962/- each and loan will be cleared upto December 2025. The complainant checked those papers and documents and found that said papers and documents are forged and fabricated documents and those documents do not bear the signatures of complainant, rather Opposite Party No.2 or his staff or somebody else on their behalf had done forged signatures which are similar to his signatures. The complainant requested Opposite Parties to get total sum of Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments after deducting the amount already deposited by him, but to no effect.

8.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties has contended that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for getting a loan for purchase of Tata Signa 2018 and  a loan agreement was executed bearing agreement no.6808156 dated 12.03.2019. As per the loan agreement, the complainant was to repay the loan amount in 54 monthly installments, out of which 12 installments of Rs.58,400/- each and 42 installments of Rs.53,050/- each, but the complainant did not repay the loan amount to the Opposite Parties as per the schedule and was defaulter in repaying the loan amount. As such, he requested the Opposite Parties on dated 30.12.2020 for restructuring of the loan amount and had also paid the restructure/reschedule fees of Rs.6000/- to the Opposite Parties after signing the reschedule form. Thereafter, the request of the complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties on dated 22.03.2021. Thereafter, the complainant started paying the loan installments to the Opposite Parties as per the reschedule agreement. Few of the installments of the complainant were bounced and the complainant had paid the same to the Opposite Parties in cash. Further contended that there was not any forgery as stated by the complainant.

9.       We have considered the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10.     The main contention raised by the ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties is that on the request of the complainant, the loan agreement was restructured/rescheduled and the complainant also paid the restructure/reschedule fee of Rs.6000/- to the Opposite Parties after signing the reschedule form and now instead of paying the loan amount; the complainant has leveled wrong allegations against the Opposite.

11.     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has not signed reschedule form and any other documents and the Opposite Parties without his consent restructured the loan agreement. We agree with the contention raised by ld. counsel for the complainant, as we have compared the signatures of the complainant on the alleged Restructure Schedule Request as well as on the complaint and other documents and with naked eyes the difference in signatures of the complainant on the restructured schedule request and other documents is clearly noticed and the same do not appears to be the signatures of the complainant. Moreover the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any dispatch document, vide which it could have been proved that the complainant was duly supplied with restructured repayment schedule and also other related documents for his information. Absence of that vital document raises a presumption in favour of the complainant that he never applied for the restructuring of loan and was unaware about the same, which reflects the arbitrary act being done by the Opposite Parties.

12.     In view of the above, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 rescheduled/restructured the loan account of the complainant on their own and without knowledge and consent of the complainant which is not genuine. Therefore deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been made out on the part of the Opposite Parties.

13.     Pertinent to mention that in order to adjudicate the matter in dispute at the arguments stage, both the parties were given opportunity to produce on record the details qua the installments paid on both occasions i.e. before the alleged restructuring of the loan in question as well after restructuring of the loan in question, as there is no certain clarity on record as to the exact amount paid by the complainant as well qua the balance amount. But no authentic document or calculation has been made part of the record. However, the record reveals that the complainant availed the loan for an amount of Rs.23,09,700/- and the complainant has to repay total sum of Rs.29,28,900/- in 54 monthly installments. The first 12 monthly installments were of Rs.58,400/- each and remaining 42 monthly installments were of Rs.53,050/- each and from the record i.e. alleged Restructured Schedule dated 30.12.2020 attached with Ex.C4 reveals that on 30.12.2020 an amount of Rs.19,18,700/- was left as balance payment to be paid by the complainant and admittedly, the complainant has paid number of installments thereafter by cheque and also by cash. So, in the absence of details about the amount paid by the complainant on record, the complainant is entitled to pay the balance amount being calculated by the Opposite Parties as per the restructured repayment schedule without any penal interest after adjusting the amount paid by him before and after the alleged restructuring of loan account in question.

14.     Sequel to the above discussion, the instant complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Parties are directed to recalculate the balance loan amount as per the initial agreed amount to be paid in the loan account in question by adjusting the amount paid by complainant before and after alleged restructuring of the loan account in question without imposing any penal interest. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay compository costs of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Parties for acting arbitrarily and thrusting the avoidable litigation. The pending application, if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties are further burdened with additional cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission